Impaler, nothing in what you have said speaks to real human needs and the preservation of the environment on which we all depend and share. Moreover, money cannot possibly fix all problems as you suggest. Money will not purchase us a new planet, provide clean air or produce more food. Money cannot fix the problems that money creates. Money seeks to push balance to imbalance, order to chaos and life to death. As for your understanding of the Zeitgeist Movement and a resource based economy, you lack the most basic comprehension of our grasp of the problems we highlight and the potential solutions we propose.

Your continuing to equate the problems of HARD money with ALL possible forms of money, Hard money has been the norm through most of human history so this is an easy mistake to make. But if Environmental preservation through economics is what you care about then you should be familiar with the concept of the Discount Rate http://www.iearesearch.com/papers/discounting.pdf

In a cost-benefit analysis this is the rate by which we value future benefits vs today's costs or benefits given up today. A high rate means we are considering the future to be of low value the further in the future the less it's value, a low rate means we consider the future to be closer in value to the present. So in any environmental preservation act we would want the discount rate used to be as LOW as possible.

The Private market uses the national interest rate AS the discount rate. An owner of some environmental resource, say a forest will either cut the forest down or not based on interest rates because when interest rates exceed the sustainable value production of nature an individual will become wealthier by liquidating nature and earning interest on the money. So if you want to preserve the environment you should want to see the lowest interest rate possible.

Impaler, nothing in what you have said speaks to real human needs and the preservation of the environment on which we all depend and share. Moreover, money cannot possibly fix all problems as you suggest. Money will not purchase us a new planet, provide clean air or produce more food. Money cannot fix the problems that money creates. Money seeks to push balance to imbalance, order to chaos and life to death. As for your understanding of the Zeitgeist Movement and a resource based economy, you lack the most basic comprehension of our grasp of the problems we highlight and the potential solutions we propose.

Your continuing to equate the problems of HARD money with ALL possible forms of money, Hard money has been the norm through most of human history so this is an easy mistake to make. But if Environmental preservation through economics is what you care about then you should be familiar with the concept of the Discount Rate http://www.iearesearch.com/papers/discounting.pdf

In a cost-benefit analysis this is the rate by which we value future benefits vs today's costs or benefits given up today. A high rate means we are considering the future to be of low value the further in the future the less it's value, a low rate means we consider the future to be closer in value to the present. So in any environmental preservation act we would want the discount rate used to be as LOW as possible.

The Private market uses the national interest rate AS the discount rate. An owner of some environmental resource, say a forest will either cut the forest down or not based on interest rates because when interest rates exceed the sustainable value production of nature an individual will become wealthier by liquidating nature and earning interest on the money. So if you want to preserve the environment you should want to see the lowest interest rate possible.

The quality of the money is not the problem, it is the fact that money distorts reality and thus social and cultural values, to humanity's detriment. The planet has enough resources to provide for the entirety of humanity's needs, but this is not being done. Why not? Because an arbitrary and small group of individuals claim "ownership" over the vast majority of the earth and deny it to the rest of us because it is not "profitable". No monetary system will change that, and that is why it will be abolished, or it will abolish humanity.

The quality of the money is not the problem, it is the fact that money distorts reality and thus social and cultural values, to humanity's detriment. The planet has enough resources to provide for the entirety of humanity's needs, but this is not being done. Why not? Because an arbitrary and small group of individuals claim "ownership" over the vast majority of the earth and deny it to the rest of us because it is not "profitable". No monetary system will change that, and that is why it will be abolished, or it will abolish humanity.

I am describing how interest rates ARE the distortion your describing. Hard money is unlike real assets because it can not decay, where as all man make things do, this creates an asymmetry between money and the things we trade for money.

Ownership of the natural world IS an issue, nature is the ultimate source of all wealth so monopolization of it will indeed result in grotesque inequality. But under a Hard money system it will result in grotesque inequality AND environmental destruction, where as under soft money you would just have inequality and due to the lack of interest payments inequality should be lessened.

Unfair ownership of land is not a monetary problem, people have 'owned' land in the meaningful sense of monopolizing resources since the dawn of time. Eliminating money doesn't solve this problem. Fortunately Gesell ALSO has a solution to the land problem. Again I urge you to READ what I have been linking too. Gesell realized the monopolization of land was similarities to the liquidity problem with money, both are examples of RENT SEEKING. Both problems are corrected by making the assets 'soft', in the case of land this means property taxes that are equal to the rent value of the UNIMPROVED land, the resulting revenue then being equally distributed to all. In essence ALL of us would own the Earth equally and rent it too each other as both land-lords and tenants.

The quality of the money is not the problem, it is the fact that money distorts reality and thus social and cultural values, to humanity's detriment. The planet has enough resources to provide for the entirety of humanity's needs, but this is not being done. Why not? Because an arbitrary and small group of individuals claim "ownership" over the vast majority of the earth and deny it to the rest of us because it is not "profitable". No monetary system will change that, and that is why it will be abolished, or it will abolish humanity.

I am describing how interest rates ARE the distortion your describing. Hard money is unlike real assets because it can not decay, where as all man make things do, this creates an asymmetry between money and the things we trade for money.

Ownership of the natural world IS an issue, nature is the ultimate source of all wealth so monopolization of it will indeed result in grotesque inequality. But under a Hard money system it will result in grotesque inequality AND environmental destruction, where as under soft money you would just have inequality and due to the lack of interest payments inequality should be lessened.

Unfair ownership of land is not a monetary problem, people have 'owned' land in the meaningful sense of monopolizing resources since the dawn of time. Eliminating money doesn't solve this problem. Fortunately Gesell ALSO has a solution to the land problem. Again I urge you to READ what I have been linking too. Gesell realized the monopolization of land was similarities to the liquidity problem with money, both are examples of RENT SEEKING. Both problems are corrected by making the assets 'soft', in the case of land this means property taxes that are equal to the rent value of the UNIMPROVED land, the resulting revenue then being equally distributed to all. In essence ALL of us would own the Earth equally and rent it too each other as both land-lords and tenants.

"Real value" is a matter of opinion in a monetary system. Since money is entirely an idea, an illusion and distortion of reality, it can offer no benefit in assessing what is truly valuable to humanity. By using technical measurement and assessment with unambiguous and objective results, we can provide a true picture and a clear course of action regarding human organization and enterprise. Subjecting ourselves to arbitrary whim and false authority is the path that leads to our destruction. There is no getting around this fact. There is no arguing your way out of the conceit that an irregular tape measure will provide irregular measurements. It cannot be done and we must disabuse ourselves of this fantasy.

LightRider: All value is subjective under ANY system, even knowing/cataloging everything on Earth dose not assign value to it, for that we still need subjective human judgment, and yes humans will make errors in judgment that is inevitable under ANY system. Simply saying you will 'computerize' things doesn't eliminate error, it's plain old Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Answer me in a simple yes or no, are you reading anything I am linking? If you are unable or unwilling to do so then please say so as I would then know that this conversation is pointless. So far none of your responses lead me to believe you have read any of my links. I am trying to have an honest debate here and I've seen the Zeitgeist movie so you as an apologist for it are obligated to read the counter argument material I present.

By using technical measurement and assessment with unambiguous and objective results, we can provide a true picture and a clear course of action regarding human organization and enterprise.

Here we go again with the fairytale super duper computers.

Show us a program or otherwise a system that can successfully manage an RBE.Without it the whole idea is garbage can material.

You can not provide anything because you simply don't have the tools to technically measure and assess with unambiguous and objective results. If this is not a fantasy then please first provide some evidence that such a method exists at all. Then we can see for ourselfs what it provides and what not.Otherwise, dream on.

I await eagerly to see how. I suspect individuals will ultimately have even less influence on a hypothetical well-managed society than they have now. I suspect that individuals will no longer be employed in a decision-making capacity in government at all. Perhaps we will all become the "pets" of some utterly invasive AI that keeps track of every damn breath we take and knows where we are at all times. I fully expect to be utterly surprised, and possibly initially horrified, when something that seems to fly in the face of my long-held humanist beliefs starts getting better results.

But in the long run it is the results that matter.

Of course, precisely the same methods could be used to achieve results horrific beyond all imagining.

I'm describing money which by it's nature causes nominal interest rates to reach zero. No additional intervention or interference in the financial market place is then required. Second where on Earth do you get the notion that non-monetary assets can not be rented if interest rates are zero, do you seriously think this follows or are you just being cute?

I was just pointing out that interest on money is analogous to paying rent to get use of something. So, when I am borrowing money and paying it back with interest, I am in effect renting many dollar bills, and paying monthly rent on each one.So, if we use the type of money that has nominal interest rates reaching zero, isn't that the same thing as renting a car for $50 a day, with the car being so fragile and shitty that it loses $50 a day in value? I don't think any car rental place would bother investing in such a car, since they won't make any money renting it to others.This will also apply to money. If everyone in the world used the same money, which had built-in demurage or some other method of making interest on lending be 0, landowners with trees will still make Discount Rate judgements, and chop down their trees for something else they believe will hold or rise in value.

I'm describing money which by it's nature causes nominal interest rates to reach zero. No additional intervention or interference in the financial market place is then required. Second where on Earth do you get the notion that non-monetary assets can not be rented if interest rates are zero, do you seriously think this follows or are you just being cute?

I was just pointing out that interest on money is analogous to paying rent to get use of something. So, when I am borrowing money and paying it back with interest, I am in effect renting many dollar bills, and paying monthly rent on each one.So, if we use the type of money that has nominal interest rates reaching zero, isn't that the same thing as renting a car for $50 a day, with the car being so fragile and shitty that it loses $50 a day in value? I don't think any car rental place would bother investing in such a car, since they won't make any money renting it to others.This will also apply to money. If everyone in the world used the same money, which had built-in demurage or some other method of making interest on lending be 0, landowners with trees will still make Discount Rate judgements, and chop down their trees for something else they believe will hold or rise in value.

Your actually getting very close with your analogy. Your car analogy is similar to one we use that money is like a Road and interest is like a wagon sitting in the road blocking traffic and collecting a toll, but a car is a close enough analog, the purpose of a road or car is transportation much as money is meant to facilitate commerce.

But a real car requires materials and labor to make and it's decay is caused by usage (mostly) rather then time, so it is really not much different from a box-of-tissues or hamburger, your paying for production inputs that are now being consumed when the item is used (indeed that is the way we treat cars). Money though is not created from resources nor is it used up by transactions like a physical commodity is so we do not need to worry about if their will or will not BE any money (we have the opposite problem of who will get seignorage instead), just if people will 'invest' in owning money in order to rent it. But if the demurrage car already exists by Fiat creation and demurrage car is costing the person who holds it $50 a day regardless of if it's driven or not, so if your not going to be driving your car your going to loan it to someone for $50 a day.

So no one ever needs to 'invest' in cars in order for them to exist or for them to be available to borrows, and really investing means using resources for a productive asset with risk, their is no such thing as investing in money. We do not believe people should be 'investing' in money to make more money, their will be plenty of incentive to rent money without a positive interest rate because the incentive to lend is the Difference between the interest rate and the demurrage rate.

As for chopping down the forest, we want people to make the sustainable harvest which maximizes total production over an unbound time horizon. Most natural resources can yield small amounts indefinitely if not over-harvested, a good example would be a fishery. If some new asset class is available that offers a higher rate of return then the sustainable rate of harvesting then yes their would still be every incentive to over-harvest IF such investment opportunities exist.

But when money alone is not such an asset it will cause the rate of return on nearly ALL investments to decline because the competitive rate-of-return on capitol will never fall below interest rates. Thus we would expect returns to fall to very low levels and entrepreneurs drive down prices and capitol investments return just above 0% returns, natural regeneration is generally well in the double digit returns so it would never be wise to destroy a perpetual source of wealth (nature) for a smaller source (capitol).

"Real value" is a matter of opinion in a monetary system. Since money is entirely an idea, an illusion and distortion of reality, it can offer no benefit in assessing what is truly valuable to humanity. By using technical measurement and assessment with unambiguous and objective results, we can provide a true picture and a clear course of action regarding human organization and enterprise. Subjecting ourselves to arbitrary whim and false authority is the path that leads to our destruction. There is no getting around this fact. There is no arguing your way out of the conceit that an irregular tape measure will provide irregular measurements. It cannot be done and we must disabuse ourselves of this fantasy.

Money is not an illusion, money is a technology invented by people to be able to effectively assess the trade value of goods instead of using the inefficient system of barter, this is why Zeitgeisters frustrate me so much, you're attacking something you don't even understand, you just state something is arbitrary without even explaining yourself, why is it a fantasy? What is irregular about the tape measure? Where is the conceit? There's nothing arbitrary about the market price of something, the price system is the aggregation of the subjective values of everybody in the market economy. If you can't get money, it means you can't produce something of value that somebody wants, so you should look into yourself rather than blaming it on the rich people, granted there are some rich people that got their with morally questionable methods but those are the minority.

What is this technical measurement that produces objective results? It's funny Zeitgeisters just pull out nice words without going into any theory, same as the communists, oh if we all just shared everything and helped the needy and the poor, we have the capacity to save everyone but you won't let us do it.

The planet has enough resources to provide for the entirety of humanity's needs, but this is not being done. Why not? Because an arbitrary and small group of individuals claim "ownership" over the vast majority of the earth and deny it to the rest of us because it is not "profitable"

There are reasons why we do not embark on unprofitable projects, it's because it's waste of resources. If I decide one day I'm gonna devote my time to making typewriters, sink my time, effort and finite resources into this business and then at the end when I start selling them and nobody wants to buy them that's terrible, I've just wasted finite resources that somebody else could have used more effectively and I have actually caused society to become poorer because those resources that went into making typewriters could have gone into making stuff people actually want. Profit should be celebrated, profit is the signal that you have provided something that people want, when you give people what they want it usually enriches their life in some way, so don't complain people won't let you use their stuff because it wouldn't be profitable, if everybody was allowed to do whatever they wanted without care for profit or loss, we would all be much poorer.

There are reasons why we do not embark on unprofitable projects, it's because it's waste of resources.

Well, the problem in the real world is that this is not true.In fact, the amount of resources wasted on failed projects is staggering.The only prerequisite for this wasting is that the waster is not directly or visibly connected to the resources being wasted.If that holds people will piss away anything of value.And it holds pretty often.

The big problem with this type of capitalistic system is that it mostly produces things that the market wants, and hardly the things that the market needs. This line of thinking will bring you ice cream all the way down to hell instead of preventing going to hell in the first place.That's why we have structures like goverments. It gives a context and a direction to the wasting so the resources are wasted less.But the market on its own is a ravenous beast that will eat up anything it can make money off of.

There are reasons why we do not embark on unprofitable projects, it's because it's waste of resources.

Well, the problem in the real world is that this is not true.In fact, the amount of resources wasted on failed projects is staggering.The only prerequisite for this wasting is that the waster is not directly or visibly connected to the resources being wasted.If that holds people will piss away anything of value.And it holds pretty often.

The big problem with this type of capitalistic system is that it mostly produces things that the market wants, and hardly the things that the market needs. This line of thinking will bring you ice cream all the way down to hell instead of preventing going to hell in the first place.That's why we have structures like goverments. It gives a context and a direction to the wasting so the resources are wasted less.But the market on its own is a ravenous beast that will eat up anything it can make money off of.

Ahh yes the vision of the anointed, you believe a third party can make better decisions for people then themselves. You think the market is a ravenous beast? Do you not see the dead bodies in the middle east? 2 world wars in the past century, empires constantly rising and crumbling, inflation robbing the citizens of their wealth, an ever increasing and pervasive government and the US is one of the better governments which is very scary, and the market is the ravenous beast?

I'm not sure how somebody can waste resources without being connected to them? Are you talking about banks? I bet they would care if the government allowed them to feel the consequences of their waste.

Ahh yes the vision of the anointed, you believe a third party can make better decisions for people then themselves. You think the market is a ravenous beast? Do you not see the dead bodies in the middle east? 2 world wars in the past century, empires constantly rising and crumbling, inflation robbing the citizens of their wealth, an ever increasing and pervasive government and the US is one of the better governments which is very scary, and the market is the ravenous beast?

Oh, you mean the wars driven by our western markets?The ones driven by lobbys from the military industrial complex?I hope you realize that the 3rd party you speak of could be you, at least that is how it's supposed to work. Companies serve their own selfish needs so we (non corporate entities) need to organize to get some community needs otherwise nothing will happen. Discussing the US gov is pointless they are fully owned by industry. They are not 'one of the best governments', in fact they are pretty sitty it's just that they leave enough of the markets off the leash to hook everyone on their shiny debt economy.

And it's not a question about either/or.It's about the right kind of governance.Too little and companies will F*** everyone in te ass.Too much (or the wrong kind of) control and the government will F*** everyone in the ass.I would say that in countries like the US the situation is special and people get F***ed from both sides.But usually a government seeks a balance between all factors that make up a society.

If you think governments are scary, wait till you learn how multinationals play them like puppets and blame it all on them.And this does not negate the need for proper governance. Governance is what all known civilizations are built on.

I'm not sure how somebody can waste resources without being connected to them?

Corporate raiding comes to mind...Anyway, there is so much wasting of resources and energy going on in various markets that i wouldn't know where to start...

Just out of curiosity, what do you think that corporate raiders do exactly? Is it like the Monty Python skit where a bunch of accountants swoop in with cutlasses, kill everyone and burn the place to the ground?

Because here in reality, what corporate raiders do is find companies that are inefficient and that can be broken up and the assets sold. Sold means that someone else is buying, which then strongly suggests that the buyers are able to make better use of those assets. Basically the opposite of waste.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think that corporate raiders do exactly? Is it like the Monty Python skit where a bunch of accountants swoop in with cutlasses, kill everyone and burn the place to the ground?

LOL., actually, i watched that one 2 days ago.

Quote

Because here in reality, what corporate raiders do is find companies that are inefficient and that can be broken up and the assets sold. Sold means that someone else is buying, which then strongly suggests that the buyers are able to make better use of those assets. Basically the opposite of waste.

Yeah, maybe i was exaggerating. That process can be a good purge.What i was talking about is more like hostile takeovers where one firm takes over a competitor just to rip it apart.Meanwhile, the efficiency you talk about is not directly related to the quality of the product or service the company delivers. Maximizing profits is more often than not the goal for these gutting operations. That is for the good of the shareholders, not for the good of people in general.

Because here in reality, what corporate raiders do is find companies that are inefficient and that can be broken up and the assets sold. Sold means that someone else is buying, which then strongly suggests that the buyers are able to make better use of those assets. Basically the opposite of waste.

Yeah, maybe i was exaggerating. That process can be a good purge.What i was talking about is more like hostile takeovers where one firm takes over a competitor just to rip it apart.Meanwhile, the efficiency you talk about is not directly related to the quality of the product or service the company delivers. Maximizing profits is more often than not the goal for these gutting operations. That is for the good of the shareholders, not for the good of people in general.

Because here in reality, what corporate raiders do is find companies that are inefficient and that can be broken up and the assets sold. Sold means that someone else is buying, which then strongly suggests that the buyers are able to make better use of those assets. Basically the opposite of waste.

Yeah, maybe i was exaggerating. That process can be a good purge.What i was talking about is more like hostile takeovers where one firm takes over a competitor just to rip it apart.Meanwhile, the efficiency you talk about is not directly related to the quality of the product or service the company delivers. Maximizing profits is more often than not the goal for these gutting operations. That is for the good of the shareholders, not for the good of people in general.

See? This is why I usually just skip over this thread.

Profit is the onlyobjective measure of goodness that the world has.

I find it nearly impossible for you or any rational sane person to believe that.